Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,353

    NFL Network's 100 All-time Team TE...No Sharpe & No Gates...WHAT A JOKE!!!

    Those guys who do the voting at NFL Network for this 100 All-Time Team are biased fools! They've gotten a lot of flack for focusing too much on 20th century players and ignoring 21st century players and the TE list is even MORE RIDICULOUS!!!

    Tony Gonzalez....of course....#1 in just about all categories.

    Gronk.....short career, missed a lot of games with injuries....but ok....an unstoppable force.

    John Mackey....hmmmmmm....old school domination....maybe, but I say NO. Should be Shannon Sharpe. Shannon had much, much better numbers.

    Kellen Winslow....ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Look at his numbers and rankings. Doesn't even belong in a Top 10 list. Should've been Antonio Gates.

    Mike Ditka.....ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Weak, weak numbers. Should've been Ozzie Newsome.

    What's funny is fans voted on the after-show just like my list. The old geezers voting on this 100 All-time team are getting way too caught up in the guys they used to watch, long ago. The voting panel needs some newer blood.
    Last edited by mct1967; 12-13-2019 at 09:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Left of Colorado
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by mct1967 View Post
    Those guys who do the voting at NFL Network for this 100 All-Time Team are biased fools! They've gotten a lot of flack for focusing too much on 20th century players and ignoring 21st century players and the TE list is even MORE RIDICULOUS!!!

    Tony Gonzalez....of course....#1 in just about all categories.

    Gronk.....short career, missed a lot of games with injuries....but ok....an unstoppable force.

    John Mackey....hmmmmmm....old school domination....maybe, but I say NO. Should be Shannon Sharpe. Shannon had much, much better numbers.

    Kellen Winslow....ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Look at his numbers and rankings. Doesn't even belong in a Top 10 list. Should've been Antonio Gates.

    Mike Ditka.....ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Weak, weak numbers. Should've been Ozzie Newsome.

    What's funny is fans voted on the after-show just like my list. The old geezers voting on this 100 All-time team are getting way too caught up in the guys they used to watch, long ago. The voting panel needs some newer blood.
    This is why ALL award shows, aka popularity contests, SUCK, IMO.
    Utah Bronco Freak

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,353
    And even if you look only at the numbers.....you could make an argument that Gronk should be removed from the list and replaced with Jason Witten. I've watched all the episodes of this show and I agree with most of their picks, for the most part.....but the TE list is WAY out of whack!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    30,170
    You think thatís bad look at their RBís lol

    Itís a joke, they try too hard to give credit to the old Skool players but they quite frankly are not the athletes some of the more recent players are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,725
    Any list that keeps Shannon Sharpe off is a good list to me...

    And I'm sure Elway will miss the top 5 all time QB list and you people will go ballistic ...
    Last edited by TommyBrady12; 12-14-2019 at 10:49 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyBrady12 View Post
    Any list that keeps Shannon Sharpe off is a good list to me...

    And I'm sure Elway will miss the top 5 all time QB list and you people will go ballistic ...
    Ironic you would use ballistic....

    “President, we need the National Guard, we need as many men as you can spare, because we are killing the Patriots!”

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    7,691
    This is the only formula I can come up with that makes any sense for this.
    - Top 5 in both TDs and YDS PG (So there's Gronkowski and Gonzalez)
    - 2 old guys from the 60s-70's not named Jackie Smith (Ditka and Mackey)
    - 1 guy from the 70s-80s not named Ozzie Newsome (Winslow)

    80s and 90s don't get theirs, I guess.
    Last edited by Spice 1; 12-14-2019 at 11:56 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Spice 1 View Post
    This is the only formula I can come up with that makes any sense for this.
    - Top 5 in both TDs and YDS PG (So there's Gronkowski and Gonzalez)
    - 2 old guys from the 60s-70's not named Jackie Smith (Ditka and Mackey)
    - 1 guy from the 70s-80s not named Ozzie Newsome (Winslow)

    80s and 90s don't get theirs, I guess.

    Here's a crazy stat I saw while researching:
    - Shannon Sharpe has more receptions and receiving yards than Rob Gronkowski despite being targeted 357 fewer times. Sharpe was targeted 438 times IN HIS CAREER. lol. If Sharpe had another 357 targets, he would be somewhere in the top 3 in touchdowns, first or second in yards, and probably 1st in receptions. If he was targeted as much as Tony Gonzalez, Jason Witten, Antonio Gates, Greg Olsen, Jimmy Graham, or Vernon Davis, he would've been first in everything. This is assuming he didn't get hurt, but yeah. Even if he did, he only needed another 400 targets to get into the top 2 in virtually everything.

    He also won more Super Bowls than Gronkowski, because Gronkowski didn't play against the Falcons.
    Incorrect.

    Sharpe had 1197 targets, while Gronk had 794 targets. And Gronk played in 115 games, while Sharpe played in 204...and yet Gronk had way more TDs. If Gronk played in the same number of games as Sharpe, his numbers would be approximately;

    15,600 yards
    160 TDs
    1040 receptions

    These numbers would blow Sharpe's numbers out the water...
    Last edited by TommyBrady12; 12-14-2019 at 12:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    7,691
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyBrady12 View Post
    Incorrect.

    Sharpe had 1197 targets, while Gronk had 794 targets. And Gronk played in 115 games, while Sharpe played in 204...and yet Gronk had way more TDs. If Gronk played in the same number of games as Sharpe, his numbers would be approximately;

    15,600 yards
    160 TDs
    1040 receptions

    These numbers would blow Sharpe's numbers out the window...
    The website I used for target data posted his targets wrong. I should've checked it as soon as I saw it, because of how low it was.

    https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask?q=m...t+end+all-time

    lol. I didn't even cross reference it to his receptions or Gronk's receptions.
    Last edited by Spice 1; 12-14-2019 at 11:58 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Spice 1 View Post
    The website I used for target data posted his targets wrong. I should've checked it as soon as I saw it, because of how low it was.

    https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask?q=m...t+end+all-time
    A website that lists Sharpe has having more receptions than targets is probably not a good one...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    7,691
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyBrady12 View Post
    A website that lists Sharpe has having more receptions than targets is probably not a good one...
    Yeah, it's hard to get about 400 more receptions than targets, but that was the first site I hit that had a TE leader comparison that let me specify target data. I just noticed they don't even have Mackey on there either.
    Last edited by Spice 1; 12-14-2019 at 12:10 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hampshire,england
    Posts
    12,770
    This is the problem comparing players in different decades. Gronk played under modern pass happy rules so of course he is going to have better numbers then Sharpe, that doesn't mean he is a better player though.

    When Sharpe was playing defenders could grab him all the way down the field, with Gronk they couldn't lay a hand on him or the flag would be out.

    Completely pointless debating players from different eras, whatever the position is.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    852
    I havenít followed this series, So not sure what criteria was used - but Mackey was a stud TE and went on to become first NFLPA president. His impact on the NFL is unquestionable.

    Looking at some of the other lists, there are several head scratchers.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by bronx_2003 View Post
    This is the problem comparing players in different decades. Gronk played under modern pass happy rules so of course he is going to have better numbers then Sharpe, that doesn't mean he is a better player though.

    When Sharpe was playing defenders could grab him all the way down the field, with Gronk they couldn't lay a hand on him or the flag would be out.

    Completely pointless debating players from different eras, whatever the position is.
    Apparently You havenít watched many of Gronkís games - he was absolutely mugged on just about every play.

    No doubt, he gave as good as he got, but it was ridiculous what defenders got away with on him.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    7,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainrnxile View Post
    I havenít followed this series, So not sure what criteria was used - but Mackey was a stud TE and went on to become first NFLPA president. His impact on the NFL is unquestionable.

    Looking at some of the other lists, there are several head scratchers.
    That's probably why he got in. Not sure what it has to do with being a great tight end, but you're probably right. If post playing career success is part of the criteria, Ozzie Newsome probably should've been voted in ahead of him anyway. He's only one of the best GMs in league history on top of being more deserving statistically. What's worse is they took 2 tight ends from the 60's, and nobody from the 90's unless you count Gonzalez.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •